Cited by 119Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)Ethics and Social Impacts of AISoftware Testing and Debugging Techniques

Beyond Expertise and Roles: A Framework to Characterize the Stakeholders of Interpretable Machine Learning and their Needs

Open access
Suresh, Harini, Gomez, Steven R., Nam, Kevin K., Satyanarayan, Arvind·2021·Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

To ensure accountability and mitigate harm, it is critical that diverse stakeholders can interrogate black-box automated systems and find information that is understandable, relevant, and useful to them. In this paper, we eschew prior expertise- and role-based categorizations of interpretability stakeholders in favor of a more granular framework that decouples stakeholders’ knowledge from their interpretability needs. We characterize stakeholders by their formal, instrumental, and personal knowledge and how it manifests in the contexts of machine learning, the data domain, and the general milieu. We additionally distill a hierarchical typology of stakeholder needs that distinguishes higher-level domain goals from lower-level interpretability tasks. In assessing the descriptive, evaluative, and generative powers of our framework, we find our more nuanced treatment of stakeholders reveals gaps and opportunities in the interpretability literature, adds precision to the design and comparison of user studies, and facilitates a more reflexive approach to conducting this research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3411764.3445088

Cites

82 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent HCI work has begun to pursue integrating metacognitive support into GenAI systems, albeit without explicitly grounding it in metacognition.

    “Recent HCI work has begun to pursue this direction [173,204], albeit without explicitly grounding it in metacognition; we suggest that a metacognitive lens offers new research and design directions for augmenting GenAI system usability.”

    From The Metacognitive Demands and Opportunities of Generative AI (2024) · cites this paper as [173]

    Section 3.2 describes helping users understand a model’s limitations and decide how to incorporate its output into further actions, which is related to the claimed direction. But the paper addresses interpretable machine learning, not integrating metacognitive support into GenAI systems; it does not substantiate that more specific attribution. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. 2020. ML Interpretability for Scientifc Discovery (MLI4SD) Workshop. https: //sites.google.com/view/mli4sd-icml2020/home. Accessed: 2020-09-16.
  2. Agnar Aamodt and Enric Plaza. 1994. Case-based reasoning: Foundational issues, methodological variations, and system approaches. AI communications 7, 1 (1994), 39-59.
  3. Vijay Arya, Rachel K. E. Bellamy, Pin-Yu Chen, Amit Dhurandhar, Michael Hind, Samuel C. Hofman, Stephanie Houde, Q. Vera Liao, Ronny Luss, Aleksandra Mojsilović, Sami Mourad, Pablo Pedemonte, Ramya Raghavendra, John Richards, Prasanna Sattigeri, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Moninder Singh, Kush R. Varsh- ney, Dennis Wei, and Yunfeng Zhang. 2019. One Explanation Does Not Fit All: A Toolkit and Taxonomy of AI Explainability Techniques. arXiv:1909.03012 [cs, stat] (Sept. 2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.03012 arXiv: 1909.03012. · arXiv
  4. Robert K Atkinson, Sharon J Derry, Alexander Renkl, and Donald Wortham. 2000. Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of educational research 70, 2 (2000), 181-214.
  5. Krisztian Balog and Filip Radlinski. 2020. Measuring Recommendation Explana- tion Quality:The Conficting Goals of Explanations. In Proceedings of the 43rd International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval (SIGIR '20). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Virtual Event, 10.
  6. Gagan Bansal, Tongshuang Wu, Joyce Zhou, Raymond Fok, Besmira Nushi, Ece Kamar, Marco Tulio Ribeiro, and Daniel S. Weld. 2020. Does the Whole Exceed its Parts? The Efect of AI Explanations on Complementary Team Per- formance. arXiv:2006.14779 [cs] (June 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/2006.14779 arXiv: 2006.14779. · arXiv
  7. Hubert L Dreyfus and Stuart E Dreyfus. 1986. The power of human intuition //doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3375624 and expertise in the era of the computer. Mind over machine. Nueva York: The · DOI · Paper page
  8. Nadia Boukhelifa, Anastasia Bezerianos, Ioan Cristian Trelea, Nathalie Méjean the digital humanities 150 (2012), 85-95.
  9. Juliana J. Ferreira and Mateus S. Monteiro. 2020. What Are People Doing About visualization tasks. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 19, XAI User Experience? A Survey on AI Explainability Research and Practice. 12 (2013), 2376-2385.
  10. James Fleck. 1998. Expertise: knowledge, power and tradeability. In Exploring //doi.org/10.1145/3334480.3383047 expertise. Springer, 143-171. · DOI
  11. Ruth C. Fong and Andrea Vedaldi. 2017. Interpretable Explanations of Black A characterization of data provenance. In International conference on database Boxes by Meaningful Perturbation. In Proceedings of the IEEE International theory. Springer, 316-330. Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV).
  12. Donna Haraway. 1988. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces. 258-262. and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies 14, 3 (1988), 575-599.
  13. Johanna Hartelius. 2011. Rhetorics of Expertise. Social Epistemology 25, 3 Human-Computer Interaction 3, CSCW (Nov. 2019), 1-24. https://doi.org/10. (July 2011), 211-215. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.578301 Publisher: 1145/3359206 Routledge _eprint: https://doi.org/10.1080/02691728.2011.578301. · DOI
  14. Jonathan K Su. 2019. This looks like that: deep learning for interpretable image What Do You Need to Know?. In Augmented Cognition. Theoretical and Techno- recognition. In Advances in neural information processing systems. 8930-8941.
  15. logical Approaches, Dylan D. Schmorrow and Cali M. Fidopiastis (Eds.). Springer
  16. Fred Hohman, Andrew Head, Rich Caruana, Robert DeLine, and Steven M. Dark Patterns of Explainability, Transparency, and User Control for Intelligent Drucker. 2019. Gamut: A Design Probe to Understand How Data Scientists Systems. Los Angeles (2019), 6. Understand Machine Learning Models. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference
  17. Danielle Keats Citron and Frank Pasquale. 2014. The scored society: Due process on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19).
  18. Amanda Cox. 2011. Shaping Data for News. https://vimeo.com/29391942 IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 25, 8 (Aug. 2019),
  19. A critical review of stage models. Review of educational research 76, 3 (2006),
  20. Sungsoo Ray Hong, Jessica Hullman, and Enrico Bertini. 2020. Human Factors in 383-412. Model Interpretability: Industry Practices, Challenges, and Needs. Proceedings
  21. Amit Dhurandhar, Vijay Iyengar, Ronny Luss, and Karthikeyan Shanmugam. efects in narrative visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer 2017. A formal framework to characterize interpretability of procedures. (2017). graphics 17, 12 (2011), 2231-2240. arXiv:1707.03886. · arXiv
  22. Finale Doshi-Velez and Been Kim. 2017. Towards A Rigorous Science of and Jennifer Wortman Vaughan. 2020. Interpreting Interpretability: Under- Interpretable Machine Learning. arXiv:1702.08608 [cs, stat] (March 2017). standing Data Scientists' Use of Interpretability Tools for Machine Learning. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. · arXiv
  23. Sina Mohseni, Jeremy E. Block, and Eric D. Ragan. 2020. A Human- Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Grounded Evaluation Benchmark for Local Explanations of Machine Learn- 1-13. ing. arXiv:1801.05075 [cs] (June 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.05075 arXiv: · arXiv
  24. Sina Mohseni, Niloofar Zarei, and Eric D. Ragan. 2020. A Multidisciplinary you know: GDPR implications on designing transparency and accountability for Survey and Framework for Design and Evaluation of Explainable AI Systems. news recommender systems. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference arXiv:1811.11839 [cs] (April 2020). http://arxiv.org/abs/1811.11839 arXiv: on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-6. 1811.11839. · arXiv
  25. nale Doshi-Velez. 2018. How do humans understand explanations from machine International Conference on Machine Learning Workshop. learning systems? an evaluation of the human-interpretability of explanation.
  26. Ingrid Nunes and Dietmar Jannach. 2017. A systematic review and taxonomy
  27. Isaac Lage, Emily Chen, Jefrey He, Menaka Narayanan, Been Kim, Samuel J. of explanations in decision support and recommender systems. User Modeling Gershman, and Finale Doshi-Velez. 2019. Human Evaluation of Models Built and User-Adapted Interaction 27, 3-5 (2017), 393-444.
  28. for Interpretability. Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Human Computation
  29. Ihudiya Finda Ogbonnaya-Ogburu, Angela D.R. Smith, Alexandra To, and Ken- and Crowdsourcing 7, 1 (Oct. 2019), 59-67. https://www.aaai.org/ojs/index.php/ taro Toyama. 2020. Critical Race Theory for HCI. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI HCOMP/article/view/5280 Number: 1. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, Honolulu HI USA,
  30. Chris Olah, Arvind Satyanarayan, Ian Johnson, Shan Carter, Ludwig Schubert, 10.1145/3287560.3287590 · DOI · Paper page
  31. Himabindu Lakkaraju and Osbert Bastani. 2020. "How do I fool you?": Manip- pretability. Distill 3, 3 (2018), e10.
  32. ulating User Trust via Misleading Black Box Explanations. In Proceedings of
  33. Christopher A. Le Dantec and Sarah Fox. 2015. Strangers at the Gate: Gaining and perceptions of data visualization in rural pennsylvania. In Proceedings of Access, Building Rapport, and Co-Constructing Community-Based Research. In the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1-12. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work
  34. Forough Poursabzi-Sangdeh, Daniel G. Goldstein, Jake M. Hofman, Jen- & Social Computing -CSCW '15. ACM Press, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 1348-1358.
  35. Bongshin Lee, Kate Isaacs, Danielle Albers Szafr, G Elisabeta Marai, Cagatay 1802.07810 arXiv: 1802.07810. · arXiv
  36. Alexander Renkl. 2014. Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example- Ubiquitous Computing (Copenhagen, Denmark) (UbiComp '10). Association for based learning. Cognitive science 38, 1 (2014), 1-37.
  37. Marco Tulio Ribeiro, Sameer Singh, and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Model-agnostic 1864349.1864353 interpretability of machine learning. (2016). arXiv:1606.05386. · DOI · Paper page
  38. Mireia Ribera and Agata Lapedriza. 2019. Can we do better explanations? A Explanations Improve the Intelligibility of Context-Aware Intelligent Systems. proposal of user-centered explainable AI.. In IUI Workshops. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems [102]
  39. Zachary C. Lipton. 2018. The mythos of model interpretability. Commun. ACM
  40. Keim. 2019. Towards a Rigorous Evaluation of XAI Methods on Time Se- conference on human factors in computing systems. 1-15. ries. arXiv:1909.07082 [cs] (Sept. 2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.07082 arXiv: · arXiv
  41. Ryan Weber. 2012. Review of The Rhetoric of Expertise. Rhetoric and Public 1909.07082. Afairs 15, 1 (2012), 193-196. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41955617 Publisher:
  42. Johannes Schneider and Joshua Handali. 2019. PERSONALIZED EXPLANATION Michigan State University Press.
  43. FOR MACHINE LEARNING: A CONCEPTUALIZATION. In Proceedings of the [121]
  44. Adrian Weller. 2019. Transparency: Motivations and Challenges. 27th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS). Stockholm & Uppsala, arXiv:1708.01870 [cs] (Aug. 2019). http://arxiv.org/abs/1708.01870 arXiv: Sweden. https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2019_rp/171 1708.01870. · arXiv
  45. Jacob O Wobbrock and Julie A Kientz. 2016. Research contributions in human- Name: IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics. computer interaction. interactions 23, 3 (2016), 38-44.
  46. Christine T. Wolf. 2019. Explainability scenarios: towards scenario-based XAI communication 52, 2 (2005), 163-174. design. In Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User
  47. Harini Suresh, Natalie Lao, and Ilaria Liccardi. 2020. Misplaced Trust: Measuring Explainable Intelligent Systems for Medical Diagnosis. arXiv:1902.06019 [cs.HC] the Interference of Machine Learning in Human Decision-Making. In WebSci · arXiv
  48. Qian Yang, Aaron Steinfeld, Carolyn Rosé, and John Zimmerman. 2020. Re- '20: 12th ACM Conference on Web Science, Southampton, UK, July 6-10, 2020, examining Whether, Why, and How Human-AI Interaction Is Uniquely Difcult
  49. Sana Tonekaboni, Shalmali Joshi, Melissa D. McCradden, and Anna Goldenberg. //doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300509 2019. What Clinicians Want: Contextualizing Explainable Machine Learning [131 · DOI · Paper page
  50. Quanshi Zhang, Ying Nian Wu, and Song-Chun Zhu. 2018. Interpretable Con- Linear Classifcation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Fairness, Accountability, volutional Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer and Transparency (Atlanta, GA, USA) (FAT* '19). Association for Computing Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suresh, H., Gomez, S. R., Nam, K. K., & Satyanarayan, A.
Affiliations
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2021-05-06
Pages
1-16
OpenAlex
W3123497755
Cited by
117
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 32 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 4
FWCI
9.01
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Air Force Research Laboratory (FA8750-19-2-1000)
  • NSF (National Science Foundation) (1900991)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI)
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Software › Software Testing and Debugging Techniques
Keywords
model interpretability, stakeholder needs, stakeholder typology, black-box systems, accountability, formal knowledge, instrumental knowledge, personal knowledge, user study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review